Lucy Letby. Why do some people only read headlines?

[skyfirechesnut]

I was at work today and someone says so Lucy letby is innocent now. They have just gone with the media headlines. Instead of researching.

Sorry for the fail link but this is quite a good article below on the current state of things. The author has attended all trials and listened to appeals and conferences.

I also don't understand people who say she was scapegoated. If people follow the Thirwall enquiry this is far from the case. She was totally protected, her parents calling up, being in meetings, dictating apologies. It beggars belief.

I can somewhat understand people saying she is innocent based on medical evidence after the press conference but even that is nothing new.

You can't say my expert is better than yours.

Also people seem to think it was all Dewi Evans for the prosecution it wasn't. There was Dr Bohin, Prof Arthurs , Prof Hindnarsh and Dr Mar etc.

That is without the Doctor colleagues if you want to dispute them.

Then they new defence have changed ideas from the conference they had in December.

They are also not totally impartial.
It isn't as simple as the headlines.

Here is the article.

archive.ph/NYg7U

Your "research" is Liz Hull from the Daily Mail?

Excuse me if I don't bother reading an article that says of the author (in CAPS LOCK ON) "... This is her DAMNING VERDICT".

I don't know if Letby did it or not, but I do know that this article has a clear bias that even a lower level GCSE English student could sniff out.

This won’t go well OP youll get the Lucy Fan Club piling on to you telling you there’s no evidence (clearly the nine month trial was just everyone twiddling their thumbs) and she’s the victim of scapegoating. Not quite sure how the NHS managed to heavily influence and infiltrate a police investigation but I’m sure these armchair detectives are all definitely correct.

I listened to The Trial podcast at the time which effectively transcribed what happened in court so had a full picture for nine months. Shes guilty as sin.

I am neither here nor there with what I believe – I have flip flopped many times. But I will say that Liz Hull in particular is very biased and I think other sources are much better.

I think the main issue is that the doctor leading the re-trial charge is the doctor who paper had an awful lot hinged on it – the air embolism evidence.

It’s not to say she didn’t do it, but if the case that that’s HOW she did it falls apart then that’s a huge issue for conviction. No matter the notes and texts and time sheets – the medical evidence will always be king for beyond reasonable doubt.

Well no I followed the whole
Court transcripts and every day of the Thirwall for months.

Just think this is a good article. Rare for the mail.

I totally agree.

So what if the reading level is low. She isn't wrong.

Here is another non Mail article.

www.spiked-online.com/2025/02/08/the-devils-advocates/

Can you link to the court transcripts rather than second hand accounts?

I read them live at the time but crime scene 2 courtroom has sone on his YouTube channel.

The podcast has some as well.

The Thirwall documents are here.

thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/documents/

OP, you are completely incorrect. There is literally no evidence against her at all.

Can you list ONE piece of evidence that has t been completely discredited?

*Has not been

No, a direct link to the transcripts of the court case against her. Not transcripts of the enquiry. The ones you used to do your research

I've done a lot of reading on this and read varied opinions.

I'm not expert enough to "know" that the verdict was wrong, but I do think there are an awful lot of well qualified people with concerns, and an awful lot of the people involved in the original trial(s) had a vested interest in the deaths all being down to one wicked woman rather than systemic failures.

There are certainly enough questions to warrant a proper review.

I listened to The Trial podcast too, even at the time it didn't strike me that she was guilty, after the press conference last week it seems the trial was based off incorrect medical information.

A lot of the experts didn't even look at the medical records, they just looked at Dewi Evans report and made their conclusions from that

I saw your thread title and thought it was going to be about the people who are under the impression she confessed, or think Ravi Jayaram caught her harming a baby.
Why indeed do people only read the headlines?

However, I don’t know what’s worse, that or the people who think they got the unmediated picture from court because they listened to the whole of the Daily Mail podcast.

Honestly, I don’t care if people currently don’t realise how weak the case was. Just keep reading the stuff that comes out and you will see sooner or later.

Settling down with popcorn 🍿

There are several long and informative threads running on MN that are dissecting aspects of this case, and are throwing up plenty of things that cast huge doubt on conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

I suppose it was alright to read the "baby killer" headlines without researching and then clamouring for a witch burning?

The insulin

Professor Peter Hindmarsh, one of the country’s foremost experts in paediatric endocrinology at University College London, said the blood test proved Baby F had been poisoned by exogenous insulin.

Also

The blood in the mouth noticed by baby E's Mother.

There is loads of evidence even if circumstantial.

You are wrong hiw had it been discredited.

Are you saying one expert is better than another? That won't wash with CCRC.

You are ignoring my question. Can you link to the court documents from the trial that you used in your research? At the moment you're directing me to the Daily Mail and Youtube

I'm asking because I suspect you are guilty of doing what you are criticising others for

@lnks

There is too much if it. I can't remember everything I have read. It's been years of stuff.

I really do think you are guilty of doing what you are criticising others for

Which experts didn’t look at medical reports?

Pediatrics is different from Neonatology. In fact this is one of the things the press conference brought up, insulin levels in neonates are completely different to older children and adults.

In this case I think the expert who wrote the original 1989 paper that formed a very dubious cornerstone of the medical evidence, plus 13 other international experts working pro bono with no vested interest other than truth and justice are indeed better than an expert who offered his services to the prosecution when his license to do so was in question.

No I agree that would be equally as bad.